Entertainment duty law cannot justify a blanket ban on convenience fees for online cinema ticket bookings.

The Bombay HC held that the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 did not authorise the State to prohibit cinema theatre owners from collecting convenience fees or service charges on online ticket bookings. The Act was construed as regulating entertainment duty on payments for admission, while the inclusive definition of such payment and the provisions on duty computation and payment method did not extend to private pricing or a blanket ban on fees. No rule supported the prohibition, and an executive order alone could not impose such a business restriction without statutory backing. The Court also found the orders infringed Article 19(1)(g) because they were not a lawful reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government Orders prohibiting cinema theatre owners from collecting convenience fees or service charges on online ticket bookings were valid under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 and consistent with Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 were examined as a whole, including the charging and definitional scheme for entertainment duty, the rule-making power, and the delegation provisions. The Court held that the Act authorises levy and collection of entertainment duty on payments for admission, and the inclusive definition of payment for admission does not confer a power on the State to prohibit the collection of convenience fees from customers. Section 3(3)(e) was found to regulate the amount recoverable for the purpose of computing duty under the notional capacity mechanism, not to authorise a blanket ban on convenience fees. Section 4(2)(b) was held to concern the method of payment of duty and conditions relating to duty, not regulation of private pricing. No rule under the Act authorised the impugned prohibition. The Court further held that a mere executive order cannot impose a restriction on a legitimate business in the absence of statutory backing, and Article 162 could not sustain the orders because executive power cannot travel beyond law. The restriction was therefore held to trench upon the petitioners' right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) without satisfying the requirement of a law imposing a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).

Conclusion: The Government Orders, to the extent they prohibited collection of convenience fees or service charges on online ticket booking, were unconstitutional and beyond the statutory powers available under the Act.

---